Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Sheibani v. Garland

District of ColumbiaTimothy J. KellyDecided June 18, 2024No. 1:23-cv-02773

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,914 written decisions from 2,661 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 1:24 a.m. CT; the Passim connector counts the live collection, which can differ by the day's additions and retirements (which total to quote). Coverage: of the 1,606 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,371 (85%), measured November 3, 2026. Some of what that search finds are not mandamus decisions. Tell us about a decision we're missing.

These are counts of past written decisions and dockets, not predictions of how any case will be decided. A distribution appears only when at least 5 decisions (or 5 dockets) are behind it; smaller groups are listed, not summarized. How it's counted.

What the decision decided

Each value cites the passage it was read from. Values read by a model were checked against that passage; values read by rule come from fixed text patterns. Read the decision before relying on either.

Agency Department of State Read by a model
She alleges, invoking both the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 706, and the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361, that a consular officer has unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed adjudicating her visa application.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
Plaintiff completed her Form DS-160 in April 2019.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
But she had her application refused and then placed in further administrative processing. She has been waiting about two years since then, which she says is too long. In September 2023, she brought this mandamus petition to compel a decision on her application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For all these reasons, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion and dismiss the case.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants now move to dismiss for both lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants, several government officials purportedly responsible for the delay, move to dismiss on several grounds.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For all these reasons, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion and dismiss the case.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For all these reasons, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion and dismiss the case.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
As for those that remain, Plaintiff’s allegations fail to state a claim for unreasonable delay. So the Court will grant Defendants’ motion and dismiss the case.
Months pending 53 months from the application to the suit; 62.1 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiff completed her Form DS-160 in April 2019.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the government
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the government
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
Factors one and two, taken together, clearly favor Defendants.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Ordering consular officials to process her application on her preferred timeline would “necessarily require [the agency] to prioritize [her] application[] ‘at the expense of other similarly situated applicants.’”
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Plaintiff is a citizen of Iran.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-02773
Filed
September 21, 2023
Ended
June 18, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
271 days
How it ended
Dismissed, ground not recorded
From the record
idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why. Other suits in this court.

Supreme Court and D.C. Circuit authority

District decisions bind no one. On the questions this decision raises, the Supreme Court decisions and the circuit's published decisions listed here bind this court; a circuit disposition marked nonprecedential was not published as precedent and is persuasive only. ImmCite status as read November 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.